"Stigers, Greg [And]" wrote:

> ftp to the NT server:
>  130532431 bytes sent in 1207.25 seconds (105.59 Kbytes/sec), 235.308 FTP
> CPU seconds
> and the smbclient put to NT workstation:
>  putting file ../FTPFILES/BAT1 of size 130532431 bytes as \BAT1 (96.8448
> kb/s) (average 96.8448 kb/s)
>
> The throughput was only slightly lower, 8.28%. Too bad smbclient doesn't
> (AFAIK) offer better recovery or setting variables, as ftp does. I cannot
> guess what difference the processors make, although that is not our
> 'bottleneck' in this process. If the processor speeds are significant, then
> ftp's advantage begins to look significant.

(i guess you're decrying the speed of the ftp to your nt box...?)  if so...i
ran into a similar problem.  we ftp to an nt every day and were experiencing
horrible transfer times.  at the response center's recommendation, we talked
the owners of the nt box into applying service pack 4.  (according to hp,
there's some kind of known issue with ftp on ntsp3.)  transfer times are *much*
better now :-)  and if we could just sustain the connection <sigh> the world
would be a happier place.  hth                - d

--
Donna Garverick     Sr. System Programmer
925-210-6631        [log in to unmask]

>>>MY opinions, not Longs Drug Stores'<<<